This Marvel Movie Has "Winner" Written All Over It

Of all the brands Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS) owns, none has proved so successful as Marvel Entertainment's various superheroes. So why does it seem that few believe next summer's Guardians of the Galaxy can be the next great Marvel movie?

"Days of Future Past should pan out since it's a storyline from the '80s, but Guardians were never a hallmark franchise in the comics, so how can they logically expect a return for something that was never that popular to begin with?" wrote Foolish commenter misterfrost recently, referring to 21st Century Fox's (NASDAQ: FOX) forthcoming sequel to X-Men: First Class.

Guardians may not be an A-list franchise or even a C-list franchise, but it is an interesting mix of characters that under the guidance of director James Gunn could result in a potent Marvel movie. The following slideshow has more on how Guardians will expand Marvel's mighty cinematic universe.

Meanwhile, Disney's Marvel movie franchise isn't the only way to cash in on rising interest in comic book films. Fox, with Days of Future Past and other planned films starring the X-Men, is another. Want even more ideas? Our analysts lay out the risks and opportunities in a new special report titled "Your Ticket to Cash In on the Superhero Battle of the Century." The research is free -- just click here to get your copy now.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

I understand why they spent all this effort and money drawing bigger names into this production but I still think they chose the wrong franchise to hype.

I would have rather seen an Alpha Flight movie, even a Defenders flick, an Invaders movie tying in Namor and other Golden Age characters with Captain America.. but I'm just not seeing a big return (at least Domestically) to justify this hype.

Disney may have wrote the book on cutsey talking animals but there's a reason there was never any long running series on GoG, it lacked appeal then and it's still not blowing my skirt up now...lol

Hopefully they wont under promote it like they did with John Carter (a Marvel franchise that had quite a run for a comic based on a literary classic by ER Burroughs).

You've got the WWE fans curious to see how well Batista does in the film.

You've got the Parks & Rec fans curious to see Chris Pratt in a starring movie role

Plus, you have Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper doing voice acting for it which people have been buzzing about.

And also, when the 30 second trailer leaked, people lost thier minds on Twitter and Tumblr and other sites so I feel like there's little to no reason that this film shouldn't do well especially with their reception at Comic-Con.

And remember, Iron-Man was a C-list hero, B-list at best before the first Iron-Man movie came out so their's little to no reason this movie should fail simply because "people don't know about the property".

And one person like hmsthehood having a distaste for anthropomorphic animals is no excuse for it to fail either. Especially when there's been so much buzz surrounding who will voice him.

i don't like Brian Singer's Xmen movies, or Superman Returns, and i'm terribly disappointed Fox gave the reigns back to him for Days. Vaughn is a much more capable film maker. I know he's still involved in Days (screenwriter, maybe?), but he should be running the show.

i think James Gunn is a great fit for Guardians, though. he has a quirky sense of humor that i think will lend itself well to the project. i'm looking forward to seeing it.

1) It's "cosmic", and the more cosmic superhero films are, the less well received they appear to be (F4 2, Green Lantern)

2) ZERO name recognition outside comics, and much of it within comics is for a different incarnation of the team (which is unusable due to possible confusion between Major Victory and Captain America).

Okay, I've read the other comments, now here's my take. I've read Marvel for a long time and I'd like to refute some comments I've heard.

Comments like: "Iron Man was a C-list Character."

"The Avengers were all C-D list

Characters."

Now I realize that a lot of people who read comic books aren't very old, and in fact may have just joined the scene in the last ten years, but let me assure you that Iron Man, and the Avengers, were never "C-D" list characters. Iron Man was one of Stan's first creations at Marvel and was an instant success. He remained successful for decades, and became the first alcoholic comic book character in the award winning story "Demon in a Bottle".

The Avengers themselves were a combination group of Marvel's top sellers at the time (1960's)

Iron Man, the Hulk, Thor, and the Ant-Man and Wasp duo.

Now for those of you who didn't come along until after the rise of "The Uncanny X-Men" it may seem that these 'other characters' aren't important, but these are Marvel's backbone characters who have survived for well over fifty years, despite a fickle publishing industry and a mutant-hungry public. The way I divide comic book importance is this: You have the kiddie comics, which are the first comics a kid gets to read. Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four fall into these categories. They're clean, there aren't any real social issues they tackle, they're just 'fun' and light. As you get older, you move to stuff like "Iron Man" and the Avengers. Not quite so fluffy. Can a woman really fall in love with an android? Why is Hank Pym beating his wife? Will Jarvis (the normal human butler) be alright after the bad guys (the Wrecking Crew) beat him up? How can a father send his daughter to be murdered? What will you do when your girlfriend's deceased husband turns up alive?

But 'those' are the stories that Marvel is best known for.

As for Guardians of the Galaxy, I have to say, I'm not behind it. It may be edgy, it may have name actors, but Marvel isn't infallible. Those of us who are 'ancient of days' may remember another anthropomorphic character that was wildly popular in the '70's but whose attempt at movie stardom bombed badly. Three words: Howard the Duck.

The biggest reason Guardians of the Galaxy will fail is its release date, August 1st 2014. A film like this is going to budget in the $150mm range with another $50-$75mm spent in P&A. Meanwhile, only 4 films released in August have ever grossed over $200mm at the domestic box office, and all but one of those is pre-2002.

For Guardians to make its money back (and hence be deemed a "success" it has to re-write the rulebook on August releases. That is quite the hurdle.

All I know is that I had no interest in seeing this film up until I was at comic con and saw the clips. Now I am quite excited. I love how people think they can predict success or failure a year in advance. Good thing none of you is all that important in the real world. The internet is such a ridiculous place of fake experts

While the Guardians of the Galaxy may not be that well known, Marvel Studios has now developed a brand name for good superhero movies. I read comics as a kid, but I had never heard of this group until the announcement of the film. Nonetheless, because it is a Marvel Studios movie, I am more than willing to give this film a chance to prove to me that it can be good.

Simply because it is a Marvel Studios movie, people are going to give this one a chance.

Everyone making fun of the "tree" and the "raccoon" seem to be forgetting the success of the "furball" from Star Wars. These characters are no different than Chewbacca was when he was used as a sidekick for Han Solo, and they have just as much potential to resonate with fans the same way depending on the way they're written and portrayed in the movies. Chewbacca became a fan favorite with ZERO English lines in three different movies. Groot and Rocket have just as much of a chance to make a good impression.

Saw the preview of the group on the latest animated 'Spider-Man' incarnation. Looked pretty interesting, and the voice talent and animation were dead-on. Have to agree...Marvel is 'moving them up' the totem pole. THEY might hit the box office BEFORE Black Panther...and might be a better draw...Groot character is a good addition. Throw in the 'Helmet head' Teen from the Spider-Man new series and with Nick Fury added, could have a BIG winner for summer draw.

Not really excited about this movie at all, nor the SHIELD tv series, to be honest. Marvel Studios is far from infallible despite the vast successes of the IM and Avengers franchises, and the relative success of Thor and Captain America. There's no recognizable brand or mythological element behind it, nor is there any groundbreaking techniques of storytelling or technology that's been shown so far to overcome the lack of grounding that comes with space-faring adventures with a majority of nonhumans. Basically it's just Marvel saying "Hey, we're Marvel! We're kewl! And we'd like you to pretend that these are the Avengers...only in space!"

And to address an earlier comment, for a good portion of its history the Avengers were, in fact, B-list characters, or at least treated that way with respect to the overwhelming success of the X-Men. It wasn't until Avengers Disassembled that that changed. it wasn't even until Civil War that Iron Man had any sort of relevance or momentum as a character since the 70s.

But hopefully I'm wrong. Only jerks root for failure, especially in a community as small and niche as comic fandom, when it comes to one of the properties making it onscreen. You don't want to know how I feel about the fans rooting for MoS to fail.

Eh, DC has a longer history of successful comic-based movies and doesn't seem to have a problem making movies out of smaller properties that stand little chance of being blockbusters. The perpetuation of the "Marvel is infallible at movies/WB sucks" myth doesn't accomplishment much. it shouldn't be able Marvel vs DC, or even Disney vs. WB.

Guardians of the Galaxy = Watchmen. Undoubtedly, whoever wrote this article is more concerned with pumping up the price of Disney stock rather then actually predicting the viability of a movie. There is no fan base for “Guardians” or build up like there was for “The Avengers”. To predict “Guardians” being some kind of huge success is total ignorance. “Watchman” was a well directed, well produced movie but failed to reach expectations simply because no one knew who they were or what the story was about. “Iron Man” succeeded as a “second tier” movie because it was very well made and everyone knew who Iron Man was. Not so here. (BTW, “Daredevil” was a second tier movie and exceeded expectations, too. But not at a level like “Iron Man”). In any case, depending on the budget, “Guardians” is destined to be another “John Carter” for Disney. The film will be totally dependent on CGI and besides “Avatar” those kinds of flicks simply don't make it.

So when you read stuff here just beware...”The Motley Fool” is an investment company. They know absolutely nothing (or care) about movie reviews. They are just seeking to pump up their own investment “strategies”.

>>So when you read stuff here just beware...”The Motley Fool” is an investment company. They know absolutely nothing (or care) about movie reviews. They are just seeking to pump up their own investment “strategies”.

Wrong. I'm not only an investor, but also a huge fan of all the comics and pop culture goodness that I cover weekly. (After all, what would be the point of writing about comics if you didn't love reading or talking about them?)